Cognitiveand linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in korean

Language

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 546-582

  Kwon, Nayoung ^a   Gordon, Peter C ^b   Lee, Yoonhyoung ^c   Kluender, Robert ^d   Polinsky, Maria ^e  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c Catholic University of Daegu   (South Korea)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Eye tracking; Korean; Relative clauses; Sentence processing; Syntax; Working memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958053663     PISSN: 00978507     EISSN: 15350665     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/lan.2010.0006     Document Type: Article

References (121)

1. BERWICK, ROBERT, and AMY WEINBERG. 1984. Grammars and models of language use. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance, ed. by Robert Berwick and Amy Wein-berg, 35-82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. BEVER, THOMAS G. 1974. The ascent of the specious, or there's a lot we don't know about mirrors. Explaining linguistic phenomena, ed. by David Cohen, 173-200. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
3. BOCK, KATHRYN. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18.355-87.
4. BRESNAN, JOAN, and RONALD KAPLAN. 1982. Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Joan Bresnan, xvii-lii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. CAPLAN, DAVID; NATHANIEL ALPERT; and GLORIA WATERS. 1998. Effects of syntactic structure and prepositional number on patterns of regional blood flow. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10.541-52.
6. CAPLAN, DAVID; NATHANIEL ALPERT; and GLORIA WATERS. 1999. PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage 9.343-51.
7. CAPLAN, DAVID; NATHANIELALPERT; GLORIA WATERS; and ANTHONY OLIVIERI. 2000. Activation of Broca's area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping 9.65-71.
8. CAPLAN, DAVID, and CHRISTINE FUTTER. 1986. Assignment of thematic roles to nouns in sentence comprehension by an agrammatic aphasic patient.Brain and Language 27.117-35.
9. CAPLAN, DAVID; LOUISE STANCZAK; and GLORIA WATERS. 2008. Syntactic and thematic constraint effects on blood oxygenation level dependent signal correlates of comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20.643-56.
10. CAPLAN,DAVID;SUJITH VIJAYAN;GINAKUPERBERG;CAROLINE WEST;GLORIAWATERS;DOUG GREVE; and ANDERS M. DALE. 2001. Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human Brain Mapping 15.26-38.
11. CARREIRAS, MANUEL; JON ANDONI DUÑABEITIA; MARTA VERGARA; and IRENE DE LA CRUZ-PAVÍA. 2010. Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition 115.79-92.
12. CHEN, EVAN; W. CAROLINE WEST; GLORIA WATERS; and DAVID CAPLAN. 2006. Determinants of bold signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses. Cortex 42.591-604.
13. CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
14. COMRIE, BERNARD. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. COMRIE, BERNARD. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1.59-86.
16. CONSTABLE, TODD R.; KENNETH R. PUGH; ELLA BERROYA; W. EINAR MENCL; MICHAEL WESTERVELD; WEIJIA NI; and DONALD SHANKWEILER. 2004. Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 22.11-21.
17. COOKE,AYANNA; EDGAR B. ZURIF; CHRISTIAN DEVITA; DAVID ALSOP; PHYLLIS KOENIG; JOHN DETRE; JAMES GEE; MARIAPINÃNGO; JENNIFER BALOGH; and MURRAY GROSSMAN. 2001. Neural basis for sentence comprehension: Grammatical and short-term memory components. Human Brain Mapping 15.80-94.
18. DEMBERG, VERA, and FRANK KELLER. 2009. A computational model of prediction in human parsing: Unifying locality and surprisal effects. Proceedings of CogSci 2009. 1888-93.
19. DE VILLIERS, JILL G.; HELEN B. TAGER FLUSBERG; KENJI HAKUTA; and MICHAEL COHEN. 1979. Children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8.499-518.
20. DIESSEL, HOLGER, and MICHAEL TOMASELLO. 2005. A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81.882-906.
21. DOUGHTY, CATHERINE. 1991. Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13.431-69.
22. DOWNING, BRUCE T. 1978. Some universals of relative clause structure. Universals of human language, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 375-418. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23. ECKMAN, FRED; LAWRENCE BELL; and DIANE NELSON. 1988. On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics 9.1-20.
24. FOLK, JOCELYN R., and ROBIN K. MORRIS. 2003. Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition 31.87-99
25. FOX, BARBARA A. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis? Language 63.856-70.
26. FOX, BARBARAA., and SANDRAA. THOMPSON. 1990.Adiscourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66.297-316.
27. FRAZIER, LYN, and CHARLES CLIFTON, JR. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4.93-126.
28. FRAZIER, LYN, and JANET D. FODOR. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6.291-325.
29. FRIEDMANN, NAAMA, and RAMA NOVOGRODSKY. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language 31.661-81.
30. GASS, SUSAN. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29.327-44.
31. GIBSON, EDWARD. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68.1-76.
32. GIBSON, EDWARD. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium, ed. by Alec Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita, and Wayne O'Neil, 95-126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. GIBSON, EDWARD, and IRIS WU. 2010. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Cambridge, MA: MIT, and Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University, MS.
34. GORDON, PETER C., and RANDALL HENDRICK. 2005. Relativization, ergativity, and corpus frequency. Linguistic Inquiry 18.315-32.
35. GORDON, PETER C.; RANDALL HENDRICK; and MARCUS JOHNSON. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27.1411-23.
36. GORDON, PETER C.; RANDALL HENDRICK; and MARCUS JOHNSON. 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51.97-114.
37. GORDON, PETER C.; RANDALL HENDRICK; MARCUS JOHNSON; and YOONHYOUNG LEE. 2006. Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32.1304-21.
38. GORDON, PETER C.; RANDALL HENDRICK; and WILLIAM H. LEVINE. 2002. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13.425-30.
39. GREENBERG, JOSEPH H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 58-90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. GRODNER, DANIEL, and EDWARD GIBSON. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29.261-90.
41. GRODZINSKY, YOSEF. 1989. Agrammatic comprehension of relative clauses. Brain and Language 37.480-99.
42. HAGIWARA, HIROKO; TAKAHIRO SOSHI; MASAMI ISHIHARA; and KUNIYASU IMANAKA. 2007. A topographical study on the ERP correlates of scrambled word order in Japanese complex sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19.175-93.
43. HALE, JOHN. 2001. Aprobabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2001.159-66.
44. HALE, JOHN. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30.609-42.
45. HAMILTON, ROBERT L. 1994. Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning 44.123-57.
46. HAN, CHUNG-HYE, and JONG-BOK KIM. 2004. Are there 'double relative clauses' in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35.315-37.
47. HAN, JONG-IM. 1992. Syntactic movement analysis of Korean relativization. Language Research 28.335-57.
48. HARTSUIKER, ROBERT J., and CASPER WESTENBERG. 2000. Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition 75.B27-39.
49. HAWKINS, JOHNA. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. HAWKINS, JOHN A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. HSIAO, FRANNY, and EDWARD GIBSON. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90.3-27.
52. HUANG, C.-T. JAMES. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15.531-74.
53. ISHIZUKA, TOMOKO; KENTARO NAKATANI; and EDWARD GIBSON. 2003. Relative clause extraction complexity in Japanese. Poster presented at the 16th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, MIT, MA.
54. ISHIZUKA, TOMOKO; KENTARO NAKATANI; and EDWARD GIBSON. 2006. Processing Japanese relative clause in context. Paper presented at the 19th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, CUNY, NY.
55. JAEGER, FLORIAN T.; EVELINA FEDORENKO; PHILIP HOFMEISTER; and EDWARD GIBSON. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic processing: Anti-locality outside of head-final languages. Paper presented at the 21st CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, UNC Chapel Hill, NC.
56. JUST, MARCEL A., and PATRICIA A. CARPENTER. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99.122-49.
57. JUST, MARCEL A.; PATRICIA A. CARPENTER; TIMOTHY A. KELLER; WILLIAM F. EDDY; and KEITH R. THULBORN. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274.114-16.
58. KANG, YOUNG-SE. 1986. Korean syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.
59. KEENAN, EDWARD L. 1975. Variation in universal grammar. Analyzing variation in language, ed. by Ralph W. Fasold and Roger W. Shuy, 136-48. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
60. KEENAN, EDWARD L. 1985. Relative clauses. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 141-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. KEENAN, EDWARD L., and BERNARD COMRIE. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8.63-99.
62. KEENAN, EDWARD L., and SARAH HAWKINS. 1987. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. Universal grammar: 15 essays, ed. by Edward L. Keenan, 60-85. London: Routledge.
63. KIM, JONG-BOK. 1998. A head-driven and constraint-based analysis of Korean relative clause constructions. Language Research 34.767-808.
64. KIM, MIN-JOO. 2007. Formal linking in internally headed relatives. Natural Language Semantics 15.279-315.
65. KIM, MIN-JOO. 2009. E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27.345-77.
66. KIM, YOUNG-JOO. 2000. Subject/object drop in the acquisition of Korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9.325-51.
67. KING, JONATHAN, and MARCELA. JUST. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30.580-602.
68. KING, JONATHAN, and MARTA KUTAS. 1995. Who did what and when? Using word-and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7.376-95.
69. KONIECZNY, LARS. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29.627-45.
70. KUNO, SUSUMU. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. KUO, KUEILAN, and SHRAVAN VASISHTH. 2006. Processing relative clauses: Evidence from Chinese. Potsdam: University of Potsdam, MS.
72. KWON, NAYOUNG. 2008. Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.
73. LEE, SUN-HEE. 2004. A lexical analysis of select unbounded dependency constructions in Korean. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.
74. LEE, YOONHYOUNG; HANJUNG LEE; and PETER C. GORDON. 2007. Linguistic complexity and information structure in Korean: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Cognition 104.495-534.
75. LEMPERT, HENRIETTA, and MARCEL KINSBOURNE. 1980. Preschool children's sentence comprehension: Strategies with respect to word order. Journal of Child Language 7.371-79.
76. LEVY, ROGER. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106.1126-77.
77. LEWIS, RICHARD L. 1996. Inference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25.93-115.
78. LEWIS, RICHARD L., and SHRAVAN VASISHTH. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29.375-419.
79. LEWIS, RICHARD L.; SHRAVAN VASISHTH; and JULIE A. VAN DYKE. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10.447-54.
80. LIN, CHIEN-JER CHARLES. 2006. Grammar and parsing: A typological investigation of relative clause processing. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation.
81. LIN, CHIEN-JER CHARLES. 2008. The processing foundation of head-final relative clauses. Language and Linguistics 9.813-38.
82. LIN, CHIEN-JER CHARLES, and THOMAS G. BEVER. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 25.254-60.
83. LIN, YOWYU, and SUSAN M. GARNSEY. 2007. Plausibility and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. Poster presented at the 20th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California, San Diego.
84. LIVERSEDGE, SIMON P.; KEVIN B. PATERSON; and MARTIN J. PICKERING. 1998. Eye movements and measures of reading time. Eye guidance in reading and scene perception, ed. by Geoffrey Underwood, 55-75. New York: Elsevier.
85. LUKATELA, KATARINA; DONALD SHANKWEILER; and STEPHEN CRAIN. 1995. Syntactic processing in agrammatic aphasia by speakers of a Slavic language. Brain and Language 49.50-76.
86. MATSUMOTO, YOSHIKO. 1997. Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
87. MITCHELL, DON C.; FERNANDO CUETOS; MARTIN M. B. CORLEY; and MARC BRYSBAERT. 1995. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24.469-88.
88. MIYAMOTO, EDSON T. 2002. Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31.307-47.
89. MIYAMOTO, EDSON T. 2006. Processing alternative word orders in Japanese. Handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics, vol. 2: Japanese, ed. by Mineharu Nakayama, Reiko Mazuka, and Yasuhiro Shirai, 257-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90. MIYAMOTO, EDSON T., and MICHIKO NAKAMURA. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22.342-55.
91. MÜLLER, HORST M.; JONATHAN W. KING; and MARTA KUTAS. 1997. Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research 5.193-203.
92. MÜNTE, THOMAS F.; O. SCHWIRTZ; BERNADETTE M. WIERINGA; MIKE MATZKE; and SÖNKE JOHANNES. 1997. Elektrophysiologie komplexer Sätze: Ereigniskorrelierte Potentiale auf der Wort-und Satz-Ebene. Zeitschrift für Elektroenzephalographie, Elektromyog-raphie und verwandte Gebiete 28.11-17.
93. NAKAYAMA, MINEHARU; SUN-HEE LEE; and RICHARD L. LEWIS. 2005. Difficulty of processing Japanese and Korean center-embedding constructions. Studies in Language Sciences 4.99-118.
94. O'GRADY, WILLIAM. 1997. Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
95. O'GRADY, WILLIAM; MISEON LEE; and MIHO CHOO. 2003. A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25.433-48.
96. PARK, SANG DOH, and JOHN WHITMAN. 2003. Direct movement passives in Korean and Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11, ed. by William McClure, 307-21. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
97. PICKERING, MARTIN J., and HOLLY P. BRANIGAN. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39.633-51.
98. POLINSKY, MARIA, and ROBERT KLUENDER. 2007. Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead. Linguistic Typology 11.273-83.
99. RAYNER, KEITH. 1975. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology 7.65-81.
100. RAYNER, KEITH. 1978. Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin 85.618-60.
101. RAYNER, KEITH. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124.372-422.
102. RAYNER, KEITH, and SUSAN A. DUFFY. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition 14.191-201.
103. ROLAND, DOUGLAS; FREDERIC DICK; and JEFFREY L. ELMAN. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57.348-79.
104. SHELDON, AMY. 1974. The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13.272-81.
105. SOHN, HO-MIN. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics 2.2-19.
106. STROMSWOLD, KARIN; DAVID CAPLAN; NATHANIEL ALPERT; and SCOTT RAUCH. 1996. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52.452-73.
107. STURT, PATRICK, and MATTHEW W. CROCKER. 1996. Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes 11.449-94.
108. TAVAKOLIAN, SUSAN L. 1978. The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses and other structures. Papers in the structure and development of child language, ed. by Helen Goodluck and Lawrence Solan, 37-83. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
109. TRAXLER, MATTHEW. J.; ROBIN K. MORRIS; and RACHEL E. SEELY. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47.69-90.
110. UEHARA, KEIKO. 1997. Judgments of processing load in Japanese: The effect of NP-ga sequences. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research 26.255-63.
111. UENO, MIEKO, and SUSAN M. GARNSEY. 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23.646-88.
112. UENO, MIEKO, and ROBERT KLUENDER. 2003. Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling. Brain and Language 86.243-71.
113. VAN DYKE, JULIE A., and RICHARD L. LEWIS. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misan-alyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 49.285-316.
114. VAN DYKE, JULIE A., and BRIAN MCELREE. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 55.157-66.
115. VASISHTH, SHRAVAN. 2003. Working memory in sentence comprehension: Processing Hindi center embeddings. London: Routledge.
116. VASISHTH, SHRAVAN, and RICHARD L. LEWIS. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82.767-94.
117. WANNER, ERIC, and MICHAEL MARATSOS. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. Linguistic theory and psychological reality, ed. by Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George Miller, 119-61. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
118. WARREN, TESSA, and EDWARD GIBSON. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85.79-112.
119. YAMASHITA, HIROKO. 1997. The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26.163-88.
120. YANG, HYUN-KWON. 1990. Categories and barriers in Korean. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.
121. YUN, JIWON; JOHN WHITMAN; and JOHN HALE. 2010. Subject-object asymmetries in Korean sentence comprehension. Proceedings of CogSci 2010, to appear.